Image 01 Image 03

Hillary ‘Gun Grabber’ Clinton

Hillary ‘Gun Grabber’ Clinton

Says Australian-style gun control ‘worth looking at’

Despite popular opinion in favor of second amendment rights, Hillary Clinton has made gun control a centerpiece of her White House bid.

Speaking in New Hampshire Friday, Clinton was asked about gun control. “Recently Australia managed to get away, or take away tens of thousands, millions of handguns. In one year, they were all gone. Can we do that? If we can’t, why can’t we?”

Clinton responded saying Australia’s eradication of firearms was “worth considering” on a national level.

Clinton said:

Australia is a good example, Canada is a good example, the U.K. is a good example. Why? Each of them have had mass killings. Australia had a huge mass killing about 20-25 years ago, Canada did as well, so did the U.K. In reaction, they passed much stricter gun laws.

In the Australian example, as I recall, that was a buyback program. The Australian government, as part of trying to clamp down on the availability of automatic weapons, offered a good price for buying hundreds of thousands of guns. Then, they basically clamped down, going forward, in terms of having more of a background check approach, more of a permitting approach, but they believe, and I think the evidence supports them, that by offering to buyback those guns, they were able to curtail the supply and set a different standard for gun purchases in the future.

Communities have done that in our country, several communities have done gun buyback programs. I think it would be worth considering doing it on the national level, if that could be arranged. After the terrible 2008 financial crisis, one of the programs that President Obama was able to get in place was Cash for Clunkers. You remember that? It was partially a way to get people to buy new cars because we wanted more economic activity, and to get old models that were polluting too much, off the roads. So I think that’s worth considering. I do not know enough detail to tell you how we would do it, or how would it work, but certainly your example is worth looking at.

[h/t Blake Seitz of the Washington Free Beacon]

Follow Kemberlee on Twitter @kemberleekaye


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


30 years to life for violation of the Espionage Act. Let’s look at that, bitch.

Yeah because … Cash For Clunkers was such a tremendous success, right?

“Recently Australia managed to get away, or take away tens of thousands, millions of handguns. In one year, they were all gone. Can we do that? If we can’t, why can’t we?”

Hey, Hillary!

Did you ever think it might be easier for everyone, if you just moved to Australia?

    Actually, the gun community loves the voluntary local buy backs. We get rid of our old rusty guns, including BB guns in some cases, and use the money for new guns.
    Some folks even hang outside the gun buy back site and offer a bit more money than the buy back program for the guns that are still good and in decent condition.

let’s disarm all her body guards first…

theduchessofkitty | October 16, 2015 at 6:51 pm

For the first time in my life, just recently, showed interest in a concealed handgun license class advertised by a lady in a group I’m in.

The more I hear thugs like Hillary talk, the more I think the Founders knew exactly what they were doing when they wrote the Second Amendment into the Bill of Rights.

I’m taking that course. I’m getting that license. I DARE YOU to take that away from me, you bitch!

Eastwood Ravine | October 16, 2015 at 6:57 pm

Do I think the Democrats are really serious about gun confiscation? Depends upon the Democrat. But I do know that all their talk about gun control and gun confiscation is about keeping their intensity of political support alive.

Obama and Hillary both know that actual implementation of such attempts to grab firearms is an open declaration of [civil] war.

    Eastwood, In Obama’s case I’m not entirely sure he views that as a bug. Between his threatened gun-grabbing Pres Order and his DOJ deciding that they need a separate unit just to follow and persecute his political enemies (AKA internal ‘terrorists’) I think he’s trying to spark a new civil war. One which he probably expects to use to turn himself into a President for Life AKA Caesar Chavez, his hero, down in Venezuela.

    Bruce Hayden in reply to Eastwood Ravine. | October 17, 2015 at 9:36 am

    I do agree about the potential for armed revolt if the Dems tried this sort of thing. Problem for the leftist gun grabbers is that the Supreme Court in the Heller and McDonald cases confirmed that the right to keep and bear arms was a fundamental, individual, right. A later, Dem dominated Court may try to reverse this, but I don’t see them convincing the American people that that was anything but a naked power grab.

    What I don’t quite get is why the left thinks that they could be successful in such a gun grab. Throughout much of the country, they would have to depend on armed federal govt workers, and comparatively speaking, there just aren’t that many of them to collect anywhere near the number of firearms we have in this country – more than one gun per person in this country, and maybe increasing by 5% or so a year. We are talking maybe 350 million or so guns, in the hands of over 100 million Americans, to be seized by probably fewer than 50,000 armed federal agents, many of whom likely would be more sympathetic to the gun owners than the gun grabbers.

      jayjerome66 in reply to Bruce Hayden. | October 17, 2015 at 8:34 pm

      I’m replying to you, Bruce, because you’re the only one who posted a thoughtfully worded comment, and not a drooling rancid hyaena attack on the facts.

      First, as I’ve stated before, I’m a gun owner, and I want to remained armed with the guns I own. Under a US version of theAustralian gun buyback law I’d be able to do that.

      The Australian law didn’t ban all guns, just certain automatic and semi-automatic weapons.

      Australian authorities didn’t bang on doors or send armed police into anyone’s home or business to confiscate the banned weapons. They bought back those listed guns at high-end market value, and then destroyed those weapons. About 60 or 70 thousand Austrailians turned in guns without requesting payback – they felt safer without those weapons at home.

      And most of the Australians who turned in guns for buy-back used that money to buy new guns.

      After the buyback period ended, the authorities haven’t banged on doors to demand those now illegal guns. But if they turn up in your possession during legal interaction with police (in you car stopped for speeding) they will confiscate the weapon or weapons, and I believe you will face a substantial fine.

      Australians seem quite content with the new law. They are still armed with legal rifles, handguns, shotguns. And contrary to the deceptive statistics in Henry’s comment, the new gun law fulfilled its purpose: no major mass killing have occurred since the buyback laws restrictied manufacture or sale of those restricted guns.

      In the last two decades gun homocide rates have dropped somewhat, but murders Overall haven’t been substantially reduced because the population is still armed with guns that can kill. If you get angry and want to kill your spouse you are able to do it just as effectively with a legal weapon.

        Milhouse in reply to jayjerome66. | October 18, 2015 at 4:20 pm

        The Australian law didn’t ban all guns, just certain automatic and semi-automatic weapons.

        Automatic weapons are irrelevant; they’re already very difficult to get legally in the USA, and they’re almost never used in crime. But semi-automatics are the normal everyday guns that are used for self-defense and hunting. You claim to be a gun-owner; what sort of guns do you have that are not semi-automatic, and why?

        The fact is that Australians are not able to have weapons for self defense, and that crime in Australia has gone way up in the last two decades. I challenge you to find a Melbournian or Sydneysider who has not been burgled while he was home, and who doesn’t know anyone to whom that has happened. Many have had it happen to them multiple times, and it’s accepted as simply something that happens to everyone sooner or later. In most of the USA it’s almost unheard of.

      Eastwood Ravine in reply to Bruce Hayden. | October 17, 2015 at 11:50 pm

      That’s why I think it’s more about throwing red meat to their radical leftist base. Why didn’t Obama and a Democrat majority Congress not pursue gun control actions when they could have? Because the backlash politically would have been huge. Huge enough that it would have denied Obama a second term.

      Notice it’s not being talked about in an election year? It always comes up for discussion only after elections, before election season, and during fundraising and polling cycles.

      Obama and Hillary talk about gun control/confiscation to shore up political support. If either of them aknowedged the political reality of gun control being a non-starter (which it is, and they know it – it would fracture their coalition of support), their poll numbers would drop through the floor. The only reason they get away with talking about it like they do is because the old blue collar union workers are largely Tea party types now.

      But I do think if the political will was actually there, Obama, Hillary, or whoever the Democrats put up in the future would curtail the 2nd Amendment if they could. But that political will isn’t going to exist for quite some time, if ever.

      And then there is the added fact that Obama does it – I’m quite sure – to troll Republican and Conservative activists. I actually think he takes pleasure in playing a boogeyman, because the Republican Congress is too spineless and inept to do something like Censure him. Which they should have, at the very least, a long, long time ago.

It would be irrational to heed advice about preserving life from a pro-choice/abortion cultist. Principles matter.

It wasn’t voluntary and it wasn’t a buy back. It was the law and it was small recompense for stealing the peoples guns. The law abiding had no choice other than armed rebellion and Australians weren’t ready for that move.

This is treasonous talk. If she’s entertaining discussion of abrogating the Second Amendment of the US Constitution, which she is sworn to uphold as President, then she is taking part in a possible conspiracy to commit treason.

    rabidfox in reply to pesanteur. | October 16, 2015 at 8:31 pm

    Are you kidding, pesanteur? The Dems have consigned the Constitution to the trash long ago. They are just working on convincing the rest of us that it’s happened.

    Milhouse in reply to pesanteur. | October 18, 2015 at 4:25 pm

    Um, no, it isn’t treason to discuss abrogating any part of the constitution, or even to actually do so. Ironically, by calling it treason, and accusing her of it, you are abrogating the constitution. Fortunately for you, that’s not treason.

    In any case, she hasn’t proposed abrogating the 2nd amendment; she hasn’t said what she’d do and how it would comply with the 2A, but the bottom line is that it would have to, or it simply wouldn’t happen.

Henry Hawkins | October 16, 2015 at 7:23 pm

Clinton: “The Australian government, as part of trying to clamp down on the availability of automatic weapons, offered a good price for buying hundreds of thousands of guns.”

1) Contra Clinton’s words, Australia did not buy back ‘automatic weapons’, they bought all types back. There are few automatic weapons out there of any type, and still fewer automatic handguns. A presidential candidate who doesn’t know the difference between automatic, semi-automatic, and revolver handguns ought not be proposing any damn thing on American handguns or guns of any type.

2) If you want to start a revolution, try to take Americans’ weapons away. Go ahead and try. See what happens. America is not Australia. There is a record in our country on this issue. Act like King George and you’ll get a revolution.

3) What possible Clinton “buy-back program” (it’s a euphemism for plain old confiscation) would pass constitutional muster? How would it be written to get around the very plain, very pointed “shall not be infringed” 2A language?

4) No where among the many American cities which have enacted gun restrictions has gun crime gone down. In fact, it usually drives gun crimes up.

5) When will we see an anti-gun politician who starts their campaign by foregoing their own armed protection, their own security, whether private or Secret Service?


Clinton knows she’d get nothing done on guns, that no one would, and is merely pandering to the Democrat base. Since she knows this, Clinton is… (shocker coming)… lying.

    Henry Hawkins in reply to Henry Hawkins. | October 16, 2015 at 7:41 pm

    RE: #4…… Liberals never explain what their motives are for gun restrictions. We – and they – know full well that anti-gun laws do nothing to stop or lessen the crimes they say demand their proposed laws, so what then is their true motivation? Why do they really want Americans disarmed? I suspect we know why.

Clinton was asked about gun control. “Recently Australia managed to get away, or take away tens of thousands, millions of handguns. In one year, they were all gone. Can we do that? If we can’t, why can’t we?”

I’m starting to think that the real enemies of our Republic aren’t the hacks and aspiring tyrants on Capitol Hill. It’s the sheep who have zero moral qualms about voting for state sanctioned extortion and robbery.

Recently Australia managed to get away, or take away tens of thousands, millions of handguns. In one year, they were all gone. Can we do that? If we can’t, why can’t we?

All gone? As in, the entire pile was wiped clean, like with a cloth?

As usual with Hillary, she’s just making this crap up. The big Australian confiscation was in 1996, when something under a million guns—mostly shotguns and semi-auto rimfires—were confiscated and destroyed. Compliance rate with the scheme has been estimated at 19 to 20 percent; i.e. the vast majority of targeted guns were not turned in, and are still at large. In addition, Australians have several million registered (as in, fully legal) firearms … still rather a lot, considering that the Australian population is tiny (~1/13 that of the US), and relatively urbanized.

    jayjerome66 in reply to tom swift. | October 17, 2015 at 9:35 pm

    The turn in rate was around 70%
    30% are unaccountable. Authorities believe much of those were sold to black market sources, and are no longer in the country.

I’ve yet to be convinced that a people can be made safer from violence by being made more vulnerable to violence.

And where will we get the 100 to 500 billion dollars needed for this “buy back?” Oh, yeah, we’ll tax the rich some more. Hillary is more than welcome to knock on my door and politely request that I give up my guns.

Who is going to try and take them? Just try it.. that would be the worst decision you ever made.
You are a complete and utter disgrace!
A pathological liar!
The only qualification you can come up with for being president is “I am a women”? So Pathetic!

From, via Hot Air:

“Gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results:

Australia-wide, homicides went up 3.2 percent

Australia-wide, assaults went up 8.6 percent

Australia-wide, armed robberies went up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)

In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns.”

    Heck Henry, take Mexico as a better example instead of klinton’s nonsense.
    One gun store in the entire country. It’s in Mexico City in an army base. I think you have to go through three different security areas before getting to the store.
    Then it becomes difficult from that point to buy a gun.
    It’s worked well for the cartel and corrupt politicians.

    jayjerome66 in reply to Henry Hawkins. | October 17, 2015 at 9:41 pm

    your statistics are crap, Henry.
    Although there was a blip upwards in the murder rate the first year after the buyback, (before most of the buy back guns were turned in,)the muder rate dropped after that,
    So did the overall violent crime rate.
    Here, check out what the people responsible for keeping violent crime statistics in Australia say;

      Henry Hawkins in reply to jayjerome66. | October 17, 2015 at 9:55 pm

      “Here, check out what the people responsible for keeping violent crime statistics in Australia say;”

      LOL x 100.

      Yeah, like how the Obama administration keeps stats on the Obama administration. They are quite impressive.

        jayjerome66 in reply to Henry Hawkins. | October 17, 2015 at 11:09 pm

        You got it Henry, the Australian government is in collusion with Obama and the forces of the Collective to disarm you and take over the nation. Their goal is to convert everyone to Islam.

        Those damn Kangaroo Muslims! And is it true now that they’ve reduced the number of automatic weapons in Australia, they’re making.citizens pray to Allah 5 times a day?!?

          Henry Hawkins in reply to jayjerome66. | October 18, 2015 at 9:29 am

          The Australian government has a vested interest in making their actions look positive. There is not a government on the planet which judges itself honestly.

          Now you go back on ‘ignore’ for posting absolutely worthless comments. Bye!

So if my ability to protect family and home is taken from me, what’s to keep the police from deliberately failing to protect me? What if they decide I’m unworthy of protection? What if I’m a Christian, or maybe a Republican? And will the Democrats want my machete? My Louisville slugger? How about my boomer & chain (x50)?

    Actually Orwellington they have no duty to protect an individual as it is. Don’t remember the case but it was decided the police are there to protect society as a whole and have no duty to protect individuals other than some occasional specific reasons.

Gun control – it isn’t the word gun in that hype they’re interested in, it’s control that is the key word. They’ll keep their guns, they just don’t want you to have yours.
I hope that this kind of claptrap crap from Klinton gets gun owners off their couch and buying memberships in the NRA. Only something like 5 million gun owners belong to the NRA out of the hundred million, or whatever the number is, belong.

Jim Webb excepted, looks like Sanders has provoked the rest of the Rat candidates into racing each other down the EXTREME leftist rabbit hole, each trying to out-Commie the other. This started in earnest in the first Rat debate and looks to be what’s going to happen during the remaining Rat primary. The Pubs couldn’t have scripted a better scenario even if they were trying to. Still, it couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch.

    Eastwood Ravine in reply to AsokAsus. | October 17, 2015 at 11:58 pm

    Jim Webb is an artifact. He was a moderate Republican a best when he was a Republican. He’s a Truman/JFK Democrat. He really has no political party to call his own. In another era, in some alternate universe where the Demorats are still patriots and believe in the greatness of America, he would be front runner for his party’s nomination.

buckeyeminuteman | October 20, 2015 at 1:10 pm

I know of an old clunker we’d all love to get off the road. Problem is, I don’t know who would want her.